About Cal Skinner

We Hate Spam!

We have recently instituted a system of spam control that helps keep the McHenry County Blog a lean, mean information machine. A side product of this process is that in certain cases you might be blocked or challenged to prove that you aren't a robot in order to comment on articles.

If for some reason the automated processes that are in place to prove that you are a human do not work, or if you have any other technical problems with the blog, please email techguy at any time for speedy resolution.

Post navigation

Township Consolidation Dead – Updated with Public Comment

Led by McHenry County Board Chairman Joe Gottemoller, thirteen members tacked the lid on the coffin of the township consolidation movement.

During the lengthy public comment period, in which the opponents of township consolidation dominated the podium, County Board members had the following on their desks:

A map showing winner and losers in the township consolidation proposal which the County Board rejected. Taxpayers in the pink townships would see tax increases, while those in green would see decreases.

Estimates of what might happen the first year after consolidation.

Unlike the County Board vote to put whether the voters should be allowed to elect their Chairman in an at-large election, the vote on putting township consolidation on the ballot was defeated 9-13.

At least two who voted in favor of putting the at-large election question on the ballot two years ago, even though they opposed the substance of the question, were Gottemoller and Mike Skala, according to Andrew Gasser.

In a point of order, Mike Walkup challenged the right of Gottemoller and Anna May Miller to vote based on an Appellate Court case in which he was the attorney.

In the case of Bob Anderson vs. McHenry Township, Walkup pointed out, the Appellate Court for the Second District, which controls McHenry County, ruled that a person who had a pecuniary interest in the existence of a particular township could not vote on whether or not a referendum that could eliminate that township should appear on the ballot.

Walkup implied that both had a “pecuniary interest” in township government–

Gottemoller because he is the attorney for Grafton Township

Miller because she works for her husband Algonquin Township Road Commissioner Bob Miller

Walkup, who is running against Gottemoller in the at-large election asked Gottemoller if he would refrain from voting.

“Not a chance, Mike,” was the sharp reply.

“I don’t know how’s that’s a point of order.”

Without Gottemoller’s and Miller’s votes, the tally would have failed 11-9.

At the initiative of Chuck Wheeler, Mary McCann was allowed to vote by phone, even though she was on the way to catch a plane, not a reason stated in the rules. She voted, “No.”

Here’s who voted how:

Michele Aavang (voting by phone from DC lobbying the Farm Bureau) – No

Yvonne Barnes – Yes

Sue Draffkorn – No

Andrew Gasser – Yes

Joe Gottemoller – No

John Hammerand – No

Jim Heisler – Yes

Tina Hill – Absent

John Jung – No

Don Kopsell – No

Donna Kurtz – Yes

Bob Martens – Yes

Mary McCann – No

Anna May Miller – No

Robert Nowak – No

Nick Provenzano – Yes

Michael Rein – Yes

Carolyn Schofield – No

Mike Skala – No

Larry Smith – No

Mike Walkup – Yes

Chuck Wheeler – Yes

[Those up for election are in boldface type. Four voted in favor; six against.]

= = = = =
The comment period was vibrant.

Proponents were called first by Gottemoller.

Supporters of consolidating township government are seen in this photo.

Please identify this proponent.

A bearded man (whose name I didn’t catch, from Woodstock, I think) led off.

“There’s too much money being spent in this county.

“This needs to be done.

“I don’t understand why there’s any question of putting this on the ballot.”

Joe Tirio

Joe Tirio, who is a candidate for McHenry County Recorder of Deeds stepped up next.

“Who better to make the decision than the people who will have to live with it?” he asked.

One of Tirio’s opponents, Tina Hill, did not attend the meeting.

Mike McCleary, who heads the Republican Party in the most rural District 6 area, spoke in favor next.

I wanted to advance my idea of a Crystal Lake Township comprised of Lakewood and Crystal Lake and was incorrectly grouped with those who wanted to speak in favor of consolidation, so I didn’t get notes on Mike Shorten’s, Cynthia Allen Schenk’s and Bob Anderson’s comments.

I remember that Schenk pointed out the small number of people living in Riley and Marengo Township–11,000 in all.

I was commenting on the resolution that would have an outsider evaluate township consolidation. I thought the definition of the work product was too narrow and suggested adding

“or the creation of a new townships of incorporated areas which could subsequently be eliminated by referendum, if so authorized by the General Assembly.”

There is another process outlined in state law that seems to allow a County Board to do that.

I believe that township government provides little value to those living in incorporated areas and that, once created, Crystal Lake and Lakewood voters could be convinced to abolish a Lakewood Township.

The General Assembly has allowed voters in two townships (Evanston and Belleville) to abolish that level of government by referendum.

Take a look at the municipalities which touch each other on the map below.

Under my understanding of the law, the County Board could form new townships from municipalities touching each other could form new townships consisting only of incorporated areas. Then the General Assembly could be petitioned to allow referendums for abolition.

I also talked a bit about McHenry County Blog’s poll showing 80% of residents favored putting consolidation of townships on the ballot and suggested an opponent of those voting against such ballot access could be vulnerable.

Those opposed to township consolidation were asked to stand.

Next came the parade of opponents to putting the question on the ballot.

Harry Alten

Harry Alten of Chemung Township was first.

“Township government is a very personal and responsible form of government,” he said.

Richmond Township Supervisor Pat Doyle did most of the talking. To his left is Road Commissioner Dave Bockelmann.

Richmond Township Supervisor Pat Doyle charged the group proposing consolidation had not come up with “any proven savings.”

He outlined increases in costs, including enlarging the township highway garage.

Samuel Jones

Supervisor Samuel Jones pointed out that “Burton Township [taxpayers] would receive an increase in their taxes.”

A surplus that has been accumulated by Burton Township would be spent on Richmond Township General Assistant recipients, it was predicted.

Burton Township Assessor Jessica Huber was next.

Jessica Huber

Paid $27,000 a year, she predicted that the cost of assessing, now $13.96 when her salary is included, would increase.

“The only thing you’ve accomplished would be creating a larger township,” she said.

She pointed out that there are no benefits now and that she works out of her home.

“You’re going after the smallest part of the tax bill. [That doesn’t make sense.]”

Preston Rea

Alden Township Preston Rea, who is running for County Board in District 6, spoke next.

He talked of “all kinds of unintended consequences” of the township consolidation proposal.

He said he was not attending because “he had skin in the game, except I enjoy it.”

Rea said it was not going to have a significant financial impact on him.

State law, he said, allow electors at the annual meeting to direct township officials to do “thirty-eight things, whether they like it or not.”

By creating bigger Assessors and Highway Depts the union leadership would now look more to Twhs since now the larger amount of employees dues would make it more of a viable financial win for the unions.

Some of those that voted for were worried about the next election, but those that weren’t were ignoring the know fact about half the Twhs getting a tax increase.

Here I thought Rep’s were against tax increases?

Rhino’s or power grabbers?

Some that voted yes claim to be TEA, TEA voting for tax increases breaks their 3 main principles about fiscal responsible low costing gov does it not?

The consolidation effort was a Republican effort and it distracted many from the real goal: circulation of candidate petitions to support the launch of campaigns for stronger ‘conservative’ voices in Springfield, D.C. and yes, McHenry County.

We do not need more ‘compromisers’ or ‘I will work across the aisle’ candidates.

We need people who are willing to:

1. work diligently and relentlessly on passing legislation to revise the State Constitution relative to public sector pensions (current language was approved by the voters) PLUS either returning the administration of all Public Aid to the Townships or removing General Assistance from the Constitution.

2. eliminate prevailing wage laws and support the elimination of Project Labor Agreements at the federal level (crony capitalism and guaranteed union jobs).

3. totally remove ‘the right to strike’ for public sector employees and remove any law relative to forced arbitration.

4. fully support the campaign to change current redistricting laws. (2020 is rapidly approaching)
There are many more changes we need to make but in the interest of brevity I will stop here.

Bottom Line:

The County Republican Party has much to do but ill conceived and unresearched efforts are a distraction.

There are many posters on this blog who have great ideas and do phenomenal research which could be used by candidates who are running for office.

Relative to the negative voter impact of a NO vote on the consolidations, I would suggest that the polls conducted were typical:

Ask the question in such a format that you arrive at the desired result.

We will likely never know the results of the following poll which states:

“There is an effort underway to consolidate townships. Would you support township consolidation, knowing it will increase property taxes in one half of the County and there are no studies or statistics which support a claimed decrease in property taxes.”

Senator Althoff is working to draft legislation to address the issue of the township debt (which will remain within the township where it was incurred ) and the tax levy which will be the lowest of the consolidated township as stated by Bob

Anderson, points seemingly overlooked by all involved.

Sitting in a room filled with township officials is an ugly experience.

I commend all nine board members who recognized the importance of representing the voters desire to see this issue on the ballot.

The real issue was not whether or not Townships are necessary but whether or not you save money by consolidating them.

We need an option to Abolish them.

Of course Miller is going to argue in favor- his entire family’s livelihood i tied to justify them and I doubt he could command that salary in the private sector where township government runs in the family has less market appeal.

Oh, nob, there you go again…seeing whining where there is none. I’m very happy the consolidation committee had already seen to resolving the problems that people like you choose to use to try to destroy the idea. Now I wonder what reasons will be used to be against it once those milestones are resolved. That’s not whining…Just curiosity. It has been an interesting process and one I’m sure will make a lot of taxpayers happy too.
As to all the rest of your questions, I have a job and kids and I’m grateful to the committee for devoting their time to accomplish what I wouldn’t be able to. If that’s whining…😄

The issue was consolidation, which you really don’t want, you want elimination, so why support this effort if it’s not what you want?

You and a few others always bring personnel into the mix, like the Millers and a few others.

That is whining and really doesn’t contribute to even elimination, as almost all gov agencies have not outlawed Nepotism or Patronage.

Like I said work in that direction as that seems to be the burr under your saddle.

Find somebody to run against the Millers worth our vote, Bob hasn’t had competition on the ballot for years now, and even I don’t think that is a healthy thing.

Without a good plan with not tax increases you’ll just keep losing the battles.

I’ve given some good suggestions, use them, I’d love for any group to even freeze my property taxes.

I’d also like to vote on all levy’s, that definitely would make the elected prove the need for increases as most voters would never vote for a levy/tax increase without overwhelming proof a tax increase was needed.

The public has not been allowed to vote on township levies since about 1970.

What precipitated the preventing the electors from voting on the budget was two-fold:

1- A Nunda Township subdivision packed its meeting because the Road Commissioner Geske would not fix their unincorporated road. (Mayor Daley’s State Representative Johnny Vitek, which may have helped in the organized takeover of the meeting.) The electors put $1 in each line item of the Road Commissioner’s budget. They apparently didn’t know that the Road Commissioner’s salary did not come out of his department’s budget, but out of the Town Fund.

2 – In Algonquin Township, supporters of Assessor Forrest B. Hare took over the meeting and put in $500 to sue the McHenry County Supervisor of Assessments. The attorney spent the money, but he ran out before any suit was filed.

Thereafter, the Illinois General Assembly passed a law taking budget power away from the voters and giving it to the Township Board.